Voice of the People, Mar. 25

March 25, 2011

Paying bills

When Gov. Pat Quinn and the rest of our elected officials told us all about the income tax increase, I seem to recall a statement that passing this increase would allow the state to borrow billions of dollars to pay the past-due bills that had been building. I am very curious — has this happened? I have a niece who works as a professor for an Illinois university. Each payday, her check has her share of the cost of health insurance kept out. Her family is covered by this insurance. It seems as if the state has not been paying its share. Sheis not in a union.

When she presents her insurance card for herself, her husband, or one of her children, the employees at the doctor's office seem to have to hold back their laughter, as again, apparently the state has not paid its share. Her insurance is effectively useless. With three children, her medical bills continue to grow.

My questions to our state officials are:

1. When will the bills be paid for workers who continue to perform their jobs without any credible health coverage?

2. What has happened to the share that these employees are contributing for their health coverage?

3. Has this happened to any of our elected officials?

4. What are their plans to prevent this from happening again?

Personally, I can't imagine Quinn, or any of our elected officials, arriving at a doctors appointment and having to pay for everything out of pocket. Gov. Quinn, what are you planning on doing?

— Dennis Weeks, Woodridge

Other lockboxes

People smarter than I am can point out the lack of merits of Charles Krauthammer's argument that the Social Security "lockbox is empty" and we must either increase the tax or reduce the benefits for future Social Security payments ("It bears repeating: the lockbox is empty," Commentary, March 21). But I do have two questions:

If the Social Security lockbox is always emptied by the politicians on whatever they feel like spending, then why should I, a taxpayer, pay any money to go into the lockbox? Mr. Krauthammer has clearly established that federal officials can spend the money on anything they want, not just Social Security.

If the Social Security box — for which there is a specific tax revenue — is empty, then what about appropriations related to other boxes like war spending, subsidies for corporations and farms, to name a few? I assume all those boxes are empty as well and Congress should have no problem increasing taxes related to those boxes or cut expenses.

— Ravi Chandran, Bolingbrook

Divine love

I found the article about Cardinal Francis George ("Cardinal reflective as 'retirement' looms," News, March 19) very interesting, as I do the man himself. The article's reference to the cardinal's recent writing that God does not love everyone equally interests me: Has God revealed to the cardinal whom he loves more and whom he loves less? Given the cardinal's focus on the evils of domestic violence, I think he ought to reconsider his opposition to same-sex civil unions: Can same-sex partners who struggle to build family despite opposition to their efforts from George and others do better in this area? I think if the cardinal wants to be a helpful confessor in the future, he needs to focus on the example of Jesus the Shepherd, who faithfully cares for all of his sheep.

— John Wenglinski, Forest Park

Cycling season

Warm weather has returned, and so have the arrogant bicycle riders who disregard the highway, street and sidewalk bicycle laws. It was the taxes on the automobile that helped these ignorant, riders who think they own the roads ride.

It is time for the police to enforce the bicycle rules of the road and issue tickets to bike riders who disregard the laws. Bicycles should have licenses for people who want to ride on the streets and .

— Nancy Walker, Homer Glen

What is growth?

As a teacher, I read with great interest the piece written by Jeb Bush on teacher accountability ("A road map to modernize the teaching profession," Commentary, March 20). His key question is: Does the student know more at the end of the year than he or she did at the start? Therein lies the problem.

First of all, just how much more? Teachers keep hearing the phrase "a year's growth in a year's time," which makes sense until you discover that a particular student has never shown a year's growth in a year's time. There could be numerous factors at play, so "growth" needs to be clearly defined. Isn't some growth better than none? Are there tiers of growth? Should some students be expected to show more growth than others? If so, why?